[at-l] Re: Maine land prices

[jbkramer@afn.org (Bryan Kramer)]

There is no proof whatsoever to show that. The so called proof bugled
about is all based on computer simulations. This sims are grossly
inadequate, for example they divide the globe up into 1000 kilometer
grids and treat the entire grid square as one entity. They also only use
atmospheric temperature measurements at a couple altitudes, they don't
take water vapor into the model, they don't use sea surface temperature,
they don't consider cloud reflectivity and so on. These are crude
models. They are working on such limited models that to call what they
generate a 'prediction' is ludicrous. These models don't even agree with
each other, I think the span of 'predicted' temperature changes over the
next hundred years ranges from -5 deg C to +12 degrees. The reason why
these models are so bad is that they surpass the ability of current
computers to deal with them. Also we don't have enough historical data
to plug into the models once we get them running. Until computer
technology advances several more orders of magnitude these models are
hopeless.

Let me point out a couple of facts and see how you fit them into your
model:

1) Oranges were grown in the 1800's all the way north to Jacksonville
FL, there is a town near there called Orange Heights. Now because of
cold winter weather you cannot grow oranges further north than Orlando
which is 200 miles to the south. And it's iffy there.

2) Greenland when it was discovered by the Vikings near the year 1100 or
so was Green, they established towns and farms on the south eastern
coast there. However its all ice now.

3) Almost all the "so called" temperature rise for this century occurred
before 1950, how do you explain that?

4) CO2 has not been rising at the monitoring stations for the last 20
years or so.

5) CO2 has been a poor predictor of climatic changes in the past, the
earth has had periods of high temperatures with or without increases of
CO2.

6) There is growing evidence that climatic changes track long term solar
cycles, there is a 100,000 year solar cycle and if you haven't heard we
have been having periods of glaciation lasting for 90,000 years followed
by interglacial periods of 10,000 for the last million years. Just to
give you something to think about the last glaciation ended about 11,000
to 13,000 years ago. Maybe we should be worried about keeping warm.
Indeed there have been some who wonder if human activities have been
holding off a new glacial period.

I don't know if human activity is causing climatic changes, and no one
else does either. There just isn't enough evidence to prove it one way
or the other.

Bryan




> >I'd say you've got it backwards.  Planetary change (ie.,
> >the warming we speak of) is happening because of the lifestyles and 
> >habits of the wealthiest 1/5 or so of the earth's population 
> (a lot of 
> >people, in other words.)  The other 4/5 will suffer the consequences.
> 
> If this is true, then what caused the planet to warm before 
> people evolved?  This is not the first time the planet's mean 
> temperature has changed.  If it's all our fault, who's fault 
> was it the last time it happened?
> 
> 
> >The outlook for the reversal of global warming is pretty 
> bleak, if you 
> >ask me.  Cars are getting bigger, not smaller, and there are more of 
> >them on the road all the time.  Folks seem to want a Lincoln 
> Navigator 
> >or equivalent behemoth to fetch the kids from little league.
> >In 1960 new houses were built with 1-car garages.
> >Then around 1975 it was two-car garages.  New
> >construction in my neck of the woods now typically
> >features three-car garages.  It's pretty sad.
> >
> >
> >rafe b.
> >aka terrapin
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> >From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe: 
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo> /at-l
> 
> Stay on topic!
>